APHC010017782005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the Sixteenth Day of October, Two Thousand Twenty Five The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Between: Sk. Mohammad Basha and 3 others and Smt.C.H.Kanakadurga and 3 others Counsel for the appellants: 1. O.Udaya Kumar Counsel for the respondents: 1. Suri Babu Puppala 2. V.Veerabhadra Chary The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the award and decree dated 13.04.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.387 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the Sixteenth Day of October, Two Thousand Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1160 of 2005 Sk. Mohammad Basha and 3 others ...Appellants Smt.C.H.Kanakadurga and 3 others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellants: Counsel for the respondents: V.Veerabhadra Chary The Court made the following: This appeal is filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the award and decree dated 13.04.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.387 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. [3311] Thursday, the Sixteenth Day of October, Two Thousand Twenty Five Miscellaneous Appeal No.1160 of 2005 ...Appellants ...Respondents This appeal is filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the award and decree dated 13.04.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.387 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV 2 BSB,J MACMA.No.1160 of 2005 2. This appeal is filed by the claimants. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimants, is briefly, as follows : The claimant No.1 was the husband and claimants Nos.2 to 4 are minor children of Gulzar (herein after referred as deceased). On 06.06.2000, after the deceased and others boarded a van bearing No.ATC 2399 at Renigunta to go to Tirupathi, when the van reached near Patel Timber Depot on Renigunta - Tirupathi main road, at about 11:00 A.M., the driver of the van tried to overtake a lorry in a rash and negligent manner and at the same time, the lorry bearing No.ABC 4790 coming in the opposite direction was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and both the van and lorry collided against each other. The deceased was shifted to S.V.R.R.G.G. Hospital, Tirupati. She died on the spot. The S.H.O. of Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati registered a case in Crime No.74 of 2000 under Sections 304A, 338 and 279 I.P.C. The deceased was aged about 34 years and earning Rs.3,000/- per month and contributing the same to her family. The claimants alone are the dependents on her earnings. The respondent No.3 is the owner and the respondent No.4 is the insurer of the van. Therefore, the claimants seek compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- payable by all the respondents with joint and several liability. 4. The respondent No.1 filed counter denying the averments in the claim petition and contended that accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van. It was further contended that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the petition with costs. 3 BSB,J MACMA.No.1160 of 2005 5. The respondent No.2 also filed counter with the same averments as in the counter of the respondent No.1 and further stating that the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are not necessary parties. 6. The respondent No.3 remained ex parte. 7. The respondent No.4 filed counter denying the averments in the petition and further stating that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and that said negligence may be considered if the claim petition is allowed. This respondent also prayed to dismiss the petition, while claiming that the amount of compensation sought is excessive. 8. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked : Ex.A1 : Certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.74 of 2000 of Alipiri P.S. Ex.A2: Certified copy of inquest report in Cr.No.74 of 2000 of Alipiri P.S. Ex.A3 :Certified copy of post-mortem report in Cr.No.74 of 2000 of Alipiri P.S. Ex.A4: Salary certificate of deceased issued by Proprietor, Nasir Garments, Bangalore. Ex.A5 : Air India Passenger ticket of the first petitioner from Chennai to Kuwait. Ex.A6 : Srilankan Airlines passenger ticket of first petitioner from Kuwait to Chennai. Ex.A7: Voters identification card. Ex.A8: Translated copy from Urdu to Telugu of Rahamatiya Masjid. 4 BSB,J MACMA.No.1160 of 2005 9. On behalf of the respondent No.2, a copy of the policy of insurance issued by the respondent No.2 was marked as Ex.B1. 10. After evaluating the evidence, the Tribunal found that the drivers of both the vehicles contributed to negligently causing the accident and negligence was apportioned as 30% :70% between the drivers of the lorry and the van respectively. The Tribunal assessed income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd of it, her annual contribution to family was assessed at Rs.12,000/-. Since the deceased was found to be aged about 35 years, by applying multiplier ‘15’, the amount of loss of dependency, estate and earnings was calculated as Rs.1,80,000/-. In addition thereto, Rs.20,000/- was granted towards damage to clothing and expenses of transportation, funeral expenses, pain and sufferings, loss of expectation of life, compensation for loss of consortium, loss of love and affection. Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded towards compensation for death of Smt. Gulzar. Thus, in total Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded. Interest was granted @ 9% p.a. payable from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The liability was fastened against the respondents with joint and several liability, however at the rate of 30% :70% as indicated above. 11. In so far as monthly income is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the evidence under Ex.A4 as per which the deceased was earning Rs.2500/- per month. The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submitted that the Tribunal had not believed the evidence under Ex.A4 as the employer had not been examined to prove its genuineness and it was self supporting document. He further submitted that the claimants filed 5 BSB,J MACMA.No.1160 of 2005 Exs.A5 and A6 which show that she used to work, but the same was not properly considered by the Tribunal. She further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have added some amount towards future prospects, but the same had been ignored. As the author of Ex.A4 was not examined, the Tribunal rightly disbelieved the evidence under Ex.A4. Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 would not support the evidence under Ex.A4. Certainly, the same amount can be added towards future prospects as per the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1. As the deceased was aged about 35 years, after an addition of 40% of her annual income of Rs.12,000/-, her annual contribution is Rs.16,800/-. It is to be multiplied by ‘16’ which is applicable to a person aged 35 years. So, the total is Rs.16,800/- x 16 = Rs.2,68,800/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards damage of clothing and transport charges, funeral expenses, pain & suffering and loss of expectation of loss, loss of love and affection. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that separate amount shall be awarded under these different heads beyond the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Under the heads of damage to clothing Rs.500/-, transportation charges Rs.1000/-, and funeral expenses Rs.2,500/- can be granted. Since deceased died on the spot, no amount can be granted for pain and suffering. Towards loss of consortium, the husband is entitled to Rs.10,000/-, minor children are entitled to parental consortium @ Rs.5,000/- each to the minor children. Since, the Tribunal has not granted amount towards loss of estate, the claimants are entitled to Rs.10,000/- under this head. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 6 BSB,J MACMA.No.1160 of 2005 Different heads Amount in Rs. Loss of contribution 2,68,800/- Damage to clothing 500/- Transport charges 1,000/- Funeral expenses 2,500/- Spousal consortium to husband 10,000/- Parental consortium for minor children each (5,000) 10,000/- (5,000 x 2) Total Rs.2,92,800/- Thus, in total, the appellants are entitled to Rs.2,92,800/- towards compensation. 12. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed and the sum of compensation is enhanced from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.2,92,800/- with interest at the same rate and for the same period as awarded by the Tribunal and proportionate costs throughout. The amount already paid towards the principal, interest and costs shall be appropriated towards the same and the rest of the amount shall be paid as is awarded. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 16.10.2025 GRL 7 BSB,J MACMA.No.1160 of 2005 231 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI M.A.C.M.A.No.1160 of 2005 Date: 16.10.2025 GRL 8 BSB,J MACMA.No.1160 of 2005 05. As so far as monthly income is concerned, the learned counsel for appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred ignoring the evidence under Ex.A4 as per which the deceased was earning Rs.2500/-. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that the Tribunal has not believed the evidence under Ex.A4 as the employer was not examined to prove its genuineness and it is self supporting document. He further submitted that the claimants filed Exs.A5 and A6 which shows that she used to work but the same was not properly considered by the Tribunal. She further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have taken some amounts for future prospects and the same not ignored. As the author of Ex.A4 was not examined, the Tribunal rightly disbelieved the evidence under Ex.A4. Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 would not support the evidence under Ex.A4. Certainly, the same amount can be added towards future proceedings as per Pranay Sethi case. As the deceased was aged about 35 years, an addition of 40% of her income shall be considered Rs.1,68,000/- of annual income multiplied by 16 which is applicable to the persons aged 35 years. So total is Rs.16,800/- x 16 = Rs.2,68,800/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards damage of clothing and transport charges, funeral expenses, pain & suffering and loss of expectation of loss, loss of love and affection. Therefore, the learned counsel for appellant contended that separate amount shall be awarded under these different heads which is more than amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Under the head of damage to clothing Rs.500/-, can be granted. Towards transportation charges Rs.1000/-, towards funeral expenses Rs.2,500/-. Since deceased died on the spot, no amount can be granted for pain and suffering. Towards loss of consortium the husband is entitled to Rs.10,000/-, minor children are entitled loss of filial consortium @ Rs.5,000/- each to minor children. 9 BSB,J MACMA.No.1160 of 2005 Since, the Tribunal has not granted towards loss of estate, the claimants are awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. Different heads Amount Rs. Loss of earnings Damage to clothing 500/- Transport charges 1000/- Funeral expenses 2500/- Pain & suffering --- Filial consortium for husband 10,000/- Filial consortium for minor children each (5,000) 10,000/- (5,000 x 2) Total Thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs.